Gabriel
Roetman appeals the custody and property-distribution
provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Melissa
Roetman. He contends the district court should have granted
him and Melissa joint physical care of their child rather
than placing the child in Melissa's physical care. He
also argues the district court should not have included the
value of his premarital property in its property-division
calculation. Upon our review, we affirm.

I.
Standard of Review.

We
review appeals from dissolution decrees, including challenges
of child-placement and property-division determinations, de
novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; see also In re
Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696, 698 (Iowa 2013);
In re Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Iowa
2007). This entails an examination of the whole trial record
to decide anew the issues raised on appeal. See In re
Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013).
Despite our de novo review, we give strong consideration to
the district court's fact findings, especially with
regard to witness credibility. See id.; see
also Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). This is because the
district court, in making its credibility assessment, has the
distinct advantage of listening and observing each
witness's demeanor firsthand, while we must rely on a
cold transcript. See In re Marriage of Udelhofen,
444 N.W.2d 473, 474 (Iowa 1989); In re Marriage of
Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984). In child-custody
cases, the first and foremost consideration is the
child's best interest. See In re Marriage of
Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015); see
also Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o). In determining how the
parties' property should be distributed, the trial court
has considerable latitude and should only be reversed if
"there has been a failure to do equity." See In
re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa
2005). Notably, because we base our decision on the unique
facts of each case, precedent is of little value. See In
re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Iowa 2009).

II.
Background Facts and Proceedings.

On our
de novo review, we make the following findings of fact.
See Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d at 699. Melissa and Gabriel
met in 2009 and began dating that spring; Melissa was
twenty-five, and Gabriel was twenty-seven. Melissa moved into
Gabriel's apartment in the fall, moving from Mason City
to LeMars to live with Gabriel. In November 2010, Gabriel
purchased a house in Brunsville, and the parties moved there.
The parties married in April 2014 and had a daughter in
September 2014.

In
April 2016, Melissa filed a petition for dissolution of
marriage. Trial was held in January 2017, with physical care
of the parties' child and distribution of their property
as matters in dispute. They agreed there should be joint
legal custody but disagreed on whether there should be shared
physical care or physical-care placement with Melissa.
Thereafter, the district court entered its decree dissolving
Melissa and Gabriel's marriage. The district court
determined Melissa had been the child's primary caregiver
and placed the child in Melissa's physical care, awarding
Gabriel liberal visitation. Additionally, the court
determined "the full premarital value should be included
in the division of assets and liabilities of the parties. To
do differently would seriously disadvantage Melissa in the
cost-sharing arrangement she and Gabriel had while they were
together and married." Based upon the properties'
valuations, the court directed Gabriel to make a
property-equalization payment to Melissa of $64, 963.47.

III.
Discussion.

Gabriel
now appeals, asserting the district court should have placed
the child in the parties' joint physical care rather than
Melissa's physical care. Gabriel also argues the court
should not have included some property in the equalization
determination, ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.